The Cost-Benefit Balance of Statins in Hawai'i: A Moving Target.

Statins are lipid-lowering medications used for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease and represent a substantial portion of drug costs in the United States. A better understanding of prescribing patterns and drug costs should lead to more rational utilization and help constrain health care expenditures in the United States. The 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the State of Hawai'i was analyzed. The number of prescriptions for statins, total annual cost, and daily cost were calculated by prescriber specialty and drug. Potential savings from substituting the highest-cost statin with lower-cost statins were calculated. Over 421,000 prescriptions for statins were provided to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in Hawai'i in 2013, which cost $17.6M. The three most commonly prescribed statins were simvastatin (33.4%), atorvastatin (33.4%), and lovastatin (13.9%). Although rosuvastatin comprised 5.4% of the total statin prescriptions, it represented 30.1% of the total cost of statins due to a higher daily cost ($5.53/day) compared to simvastatin ($0.25/day) and atorvastatin ($1.10/day). Cardiologists and general practitioners prescribed the highest percentage of rosuvastatin (8% each). Hypothetical substitution of rosuvastatin would have resulted in substantial annual cost savings (Simvastatin would have saved $1.3M for 25% substitution and $5.1M for 100% substitution, while atorvastatin would have saved $1.1M for 25% substitution and $4.3M for 100% substitution). Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries in Hawai'i, prescribing variation for statins between specialties were observed. Substitution of higher-cost with lower-cost statins may lead to substantial cost savings.

[Pharmaco-economic optimization of cholesterol-lowering treatment with statins]. / Optimización fármaco-económica del tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia con estatinas.

Current guidelines for the management of hypercholesterolemia identify LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction as the primary therapeutic target and have highlighted the need to use statins to achieve it. There are six statins with four different doses and with different power-reducing LDL-c. By adding ezetimibe, there are 48 therapeutic possibilities. This extensive offer provides pharmaceutical treatment, but it is difficult to choose the most cost-effective statin because it is very difficult to remember all the powers and costs of treatment options. This paper offers a method to prioritize the best cost-effective lipid lowering, and chooses the cheapest statin that achieves the desired therapeutic goal of LDL-c.

Statin cost-effectiveness comparisons using real-world effectiveness data: formulary implications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness among generic and branded statins in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective database study of patients, 18+, who were newly prescribed statin therapy. Statin effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and attaining LDL-C goals were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 10,421 eligible patients, % LDL-C reduction was significantly greater (P < 0.001) with rosuvastatin (-31.6%) than other statins (-13.9 to -21.9%). Percentage of patients at moderate/high risk attaining LDL-C goal was higher (P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin (76.1%) versus other statins (57.6-72.6%). Rosuvastatin was more effective and less costly than atorvastatin. Among generic statins, simvastatin required >61% discount to branded price to achieve similar cost-effectiveness as generic lovastatin. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, rosuvastatin is more effective and less costly in lowering LDL-C and LDL-C goal attainment compared with atorvastatin. Simvastatin was more cost-effective compared with lovastatin if >61% discount to branded price was achieved.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cholesterol-lowering therapies in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost efficacy of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, and colestyramine in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the cost per patient to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) therapeutic objectives in Spain. METHOD: The following treatments were evaluated: atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin 10-40 mg/day; lovastatin and fluvastatin 20-80 mg/day; and colestyramine 12-24 g/day. The cost effectiveness of these treatments was evaluated, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduction, by comparing annual treatment costs versus the efficacy of LDL-C reduction. Treatment costs included medication costs (2003 wholesale prices), control measures, and the treatment of adverse affects. The efficacy of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) was obtained from a meta-analysis of results obtained from clinical trials published between 1993 and 2003 that met the following criteria: monotherapy; >16 weeks of treatment; randomized allocation of individuals to the intervention and comparator groups; dietary treatment for > or =3 months before administration of medication; and double-blind measurement of outcomes. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to assess the efficiency of cholesterol-lowering treatments. RESULTS: Efficacy, in terms of percentage of LDL-C reduction, ranged from 10% for colestyramine 12 g/day to 49% for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Total annual treatment costs ranged from euro 321 for fluvastatin 20 mg/day to euro 1151 for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Cost-effectiveness ratios, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduced, were: euro 11-23 for atorvastatin; euro 12-21 for simvastatin; euro 14-22 for lovastatin; euro 15-24 for fluvastatin; euro 21-42 for pravastatin; and euro 35-46 for colestyramine. Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective treatment, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. Atorvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATP III LDL-C reduction objectives in patients with high (<100 mg/dL) and moderate (<130 mg/dL) risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), with a cost per patient of euro 747 and euro 405 per year, respectively. Fluvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATPIII therapeutic objective in patients with low-risk of CHD (LDL-C <160 mg/dL), with a cost per patient of euro 321. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective cholesterol-lowering drug, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. The preferred statin should be atorvastatin in patients with moderate-to-high CHD risk and fluvastatin in patients with low risk for CHD.

Clinical and economic outcomes of conversion of simvastatin to lovastatin in a group-model health maintenance organization.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) determine if converting patients on simvastatin to lovastatin affects whether they meet their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) clinical practice guidelines and (b) assess the change in health care expenditures associated with such a conversion. METHODS: Primary and secondary prevention patients receiving simvastatin 10 mg to 40 mg daily between September 1, 2001, and February 28, 2002, were offered lovastatin at a therapeutically equivalent dose. Fasting lipid profiles and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were measured and recorded at least 6 weeks after starting lovastatin. A clinical pharmacy staff member, in collaboration with the subject's primary care provider, subsequently adjusted lipid-lowering therapy as needed to attain target LDL-C goals, as determined by the ATP III clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: Of 5,286 patients converted to lovastatin and for whom follow-up laboratory tests were drawn, 5,046 (95.5%) were converted successfully, and 240 (4.5%) had to be converted back to simvastatin due to intolerance (N=164, 3.1%) or failure to achieve LDL-C goal (N=76, 1.4%). The proportion of patients with LDL-C at or less than their target goal increased from 75.9% before the intervention to 79.1% after conversion to lovastatin (P <0.001). ALT levels did not change significantly. The mean ALT value, a proxy measure of safety before and after conversion for all patients, was 26.9 IU/L and 26.4 IU/L, respectively (P=0.134). For the 2,235 patients converted from lovastatin 80 mg to simvastatin 40 mg, the mean pre-ALT and post-ALT values were 26.9 IU/L and 26.5 IU/L (P=0.498). The annualized cost savings due to the conversions, expressed across the entire membership of this health maintenance organization (HMO), was 4.14 US dollars per member per year (PMPY), with no change in ALT levels. Patient savings in reduced copayments in the conversion from brand simvastatin to generic lovastatin were an average of 145.29 US dollars (62%) per patient (95% confidence interval, 143-149 US dollars, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: A clinical pharmacy-directed program designed to convert patients from simvastatin to lovastatin resulted in substantial expenditure reductions for this HMO and 62% copayment savings for members, without compromise in clinical outcomes as measured by lipid control (effectiveness) and ALT levels (safety). The proportion of patients at or less than their LDL-C goal increased coincident with the conversion from simvastatin to lovastatin.

Allocation of resources between smoking cessation methods and lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: based on cost effectiveness and the social welfare function.

OBJECTIVE: To use the social welfare function to decide on allocation of resources between smoking cessation methods and lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. METHOD: Three smoking cessation therapies (medical advice, nicotine gum and nicotine patch) were considered in smokers, and lovastatin 20, 40 and 80 mg/day was considered in individuals with hypercholesterolaemia (total cholesterol > 7.24 mmol/L [> 270 mg/dL]). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to obtain parameter epsilon determining the exact form of the social welfare function in Catalonia, Spain. The preferable strategy was to give higher priority to the intervention that used one smoking cessation method and lovastatin treatment for hypercholesterolaemia and that was associated with a value of epsilon consistent with the social welfare function. RESULTS: A value of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.75-2.84) was obtained for parameter epsilon of the social welfare function, showing a nonutilitarian form. A higher priority should be given, based on the social welfare function, to the intervention using medical advice for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20-80 mg/day for hypercholesterolaemia, since this approach was associated with epsilon values of 2.8-2.9 in men and 1.8-2.4 in women, while interventions using nicotine substitution therapies were associated with epsilon values of < 0.9 in men and < 0.4 in women. The cost of treating all smokers and individuals with hypercholesterolaemia was 35% lower using medical advice for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20 mg/day, which was associated with epsilon values of 2.9 in men and 2.4 in women, than using a utilitarian solution consisting of nicotine patches for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20 mg/day. CONCLUSION: These results show that higher priority should be given to lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia than to nicotine substitution treatments for smoking cessation, based on cost effectiveness and the social welfare function. The study also showed the applicability of this method to decisions about resource allocation between competing treatments when society has a nonutilitarian social welfare function.

Cost effectiveness of statin therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost and cost effectiveness of hydroxymethylglutaryl (HMG)-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in the U.S. population with diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels > or =100 mg/dl, especially in the population with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Analyses were performed using population estimates from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-III, cost estimates from a health system perspective, statin LDL-lowering effectiveness from pivotal clinical trials, and treatment effectiveness from the diabetic subgroup analysis of the Heart Protection Study. RESULTS: -There are approximately 8.2 million Americans with diabetes, LDL cholesterol levels > or =100 mg/dl, and no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease. Each year, statin therapy could prevent approximately 71,000 major coronary events in this population. In the subgroup with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl, the annual cost of statin treatment ranges from 600 to 1,000 US dollars per subject. In the population with LDL cholesterol levels > or =130 mg/dl, the annual cost ranges from 700 to 2,100 US dollars. Annual incremental cost per subject, defined as the cost of statin treatment plus the cost of major coronary events with statin treatment minus the cost of major coronary events without statin treatment, ranges from 480 to 950 US dollars in the subgroup with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl and from 590 to 1,920 US dollars in the population with LDL cholesterol levels > or =130 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl is affordable and cost effective relative to statin therapy in subjects with higher LDL cholesterol levels.

An economic analysis of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS) was to compare the efficacy and safety of the five 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors in a randomised, controlled, yet large-scale study. ACCESS also produced data that permitted comparative analysis of the cost to achieve National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP) II low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. STUDY DESIGN: A 54-week, multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-arm, active-control study in men and women with or without documented coronary heart disease or peripheral vascular disease. Data included medication use, clinic visits, adverse events, LDL-C and other laboratory measures. Analyses of resource use and cost are reported from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following treatments: atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day); fluvastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); lovastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); pravastatin (10-40 mg/day); or simvastatin (10-40 mg/day). Patients were started at the lowest available dose and titrated to higher doses at 6-week intervals until they achieved the NCEP II LDL-C target or reached the highest available dose of medication. PATIENTS: A total of 153 centres enrolled 3887 patients: atorvastatin (n = 1944); fluvastatin (n = 493); lovastatin (n = 494); pravastatin (n = 478); and simvastatin (n = 478). Inclusion criteria included LDL-C >or= 30 mg/dL higher than NCEP II LDL-C target (stratified by risk factors), fasting triglyceride values < 400 mg/dL, and a confirmed negative serum pregnancy test. Known hypersensitivity to statins, use of prohibited medications, uncontrolled diabetes, acute liver disease and age > 80 years or < 18 years were among the exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Mean total treatment costs to reach LDL-C targets for patients receiving atorvastatin (US dollars 683.37 in 2001) were significantly less than mean total treatment costs for patients receiving fluvastatin (difference = US dollars 211.35, p < 0.01), lovastatin (US dollars 607.96, p < 0.01), pravastatin (US dollars 424.60, p < 0.01) and simvastatin (US dollars 95.74, p < 0.01). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the patient population (randomised, intent-to-treat, completers) and cost measures (50th percentile charges, 95th percentile charges, Medicare prices). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the other statins studied, atorvastatin was associated with the lowest resource use and costs when used to treat patients to their NCEP II LDL-C targets. Atorvastatin was also associated with the highest percentage of patients achieving their desired clinical outcomes. Therefore, in cost-effectiveness terms, it dominated the four other statins.

Managed care trends in statin usage.

PURPOSE: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ("statins") have become the drug class of choice for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Six product brands encompassing 20 dosage strengths have been available during the past two years. The objective of this review is to describe dosing trends for the six statin brands and to determine if and how these trends vary among managed care plans as a function of product market share. METHODOLOGY: Utilization of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors was examined using the NDC Health Information Services (Phoenix, Ariz.) database for the two-year period ending December 2000. This database contains unit dispensing data at the dosage-strength level for 1,079 managed care plans. Trends in market share, mean daily dose, and dosage distribution of the six current statin brands were examined. The relationship of market share to mean dose was also examined for each brand. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Market share decreased for all statin brands during the two-year period, except for the two newest entries, atorvastatin (up 9.7 share points) and cerivastatin (up 4.6 share points). The mean dose of all statins increased during the two-year period. A statistically significant negative correlation between market share and mean dose was found for atorvastatin and a positive correlation was found for fluvastatin (P < 0.01). Furthermore, atorvastatin share was significantly correlated to lower mean doses of all other statin brands. That is, higher use of atorvastatin was associated with lower doses of all statin products. CONCLUSION: In developing a cost-management strategy, managed care organizations should take historical and anticipated market-share changes and dose-mix changes into account along with the product's clinical efficacy and total cost of care.

Effective use of statins to prevent coronary heart disease.

Primary and secondary prevention trials have shown that use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (also known as statins) to lower an elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level can substantially reduce coronary events and death from coronary heart disease. In 1987 and 1993, the National Cholesterol Education Program promulgated guidelines for cholesterol screening and treatment. Thus far, however, primary care physicians have inadequately adopted these guidelines in clinical practice. A 1991 study found that cholesterol screening was performed in only 23 percent of patients. Consequently, many patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein levels and a high risk of primary or recurrent ischemic events remain unidentified and untreated. A study published in 1998 found that fewer than 15 percent of patients with known coronary heart disease have low-density lipoprotein levels at the recommended level of below 100 mg per dL (2.60 mmol per L). By identifying patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein levels and instituting appropriate lipid-lowering therapy, family physicians could help prevent cardiovascular events and death in many of their patients.

Effect of lovastatin on cardiovascular resource utilization and costs in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS). AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group.

This cost-consequences analysis of the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study compares the costs of lovastatin treatment with the costs of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures. The cost of lovastatin treatment was defined as the average retail price and the cost of drug safety monitoring and adverse experiences. Costs were determined by actual rates of hospitalizations and procedures. Within a trial, lovastatin treatment cost approximately $4,654/patient. Lovastatin treatment significantly reduced the cumulative rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures (p = 0.002). Over the duration of the study, the cumulative number of cardiovascular hospitalizations and related therapeutic procedures was significantly reduced by 29%. The time to first cardiovascular-related hospitalization or procedure was significantly extended by lovastatin (p = 0.002). Lovastatin reduced the frequency of cardiovascular hospitalization (28%), and cardiovascular therapeutic (32%) and diagnostic procedures (23%). Among therapeutic procedures, treatment reduced coronary artery bypass graft surgery by 19% and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by 37%. Total cardiovascular-related hospital days were reduced by 26% (p = 0.025). The between-group offset in direct medical costs was $524, which resulted in a 11% cost offset of lovastatin therapy over the mean study duration of 5.2 years. Lovastatin provides meaningful reductions in cardiovascular-related resource utilization and reductions in direct cardiovascular-related costs associated with the onset of coronary disease.

Use of diagnostic cluster methodology for therapeutic costing and drug surveillance of HMG-CoA reductase-inhibitor therapy.

Diagnostic cluster methodology groups patients having similar medical conditions according to their International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes. Episodes of care related to the diagnostic cluster can then be tracked from the claims data to determine the total charges associated with patient management. A retrospective claims analysis using an episode registry database was conducted to determine the 1-year (July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1996) covered charge for statin therapy, the overall cost of treating related cardiovascular (CV) disease, and the cost impact of coadministration of drugs that potentially compete for hepatic metabolism. The three statin treatment groups (lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin) were similar with respect to age, gender, mean number of prescription refills, rate of refill compliance, and prevalence of the coadministration of potentially interacting agents. Before adjustment for severity of illness, there were no significant differences between groups in prescription drugs/services (statin Rx/Svc) or total CV charges. After adjustment for severity of illness, the pravastatin group had the lowest statin Rx/Svc and total CV charges. Within the group with the greatest severity of illness, statin Rx/Svc charges were significantly lower with pravastatin than with lovastatin and simvastatin. The statin Rx/Svc charges were not significantly different between lovastatin and simvastatin. Coadministration of a potentially interacting agent significantly increased both the statin Rx/Svc and total CV charges within the simvastatin-treated group but did not significantly influence costs in the lovastatin- or pravastatin-treated groups. The estimates of direct costs derived from this analysis are consistent with findings in the published literature and demonstrate that pravastatin has cost advantages compared with lovastatin and simvastatin. Diagnostic cluster methodology also generated valuable information regarding drug surveillance and the health care cost impact of potential drug-drug interactions with selected statins.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of low-dose pravastatin versus lovastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: The HMG CoA reductase inhibitors have quickly become the most widely prescribed family of agents for the treatment of patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The incidence of side effects with these agents increases as the dose increases within the recommended dosage range. A lower dosage presumably would have a lower incidence of adverse effects. In addition, lower doses should translate into reduced drug costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the efficacy of 10 mg of pravastatin and 10 mg of lovastatin in a randomized, crossover design trial among 30 patients with hypercholesterolemia. At baseline, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels were 249.0 +/- 27.3 and 185.1 +/- 25.5 mg/dL. After 4 weeks of treatment with lovastatin, the total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels fell to 202.8 +/- 29.6 and 141.0 +/- 25.3 mg/dL, decreases of 19% and 24%, respectively. Four weeks of pravastatin treatment resulted in levels of 212.6 +/- 30.8 and 150.5 +/- 25.5 mg/dL, or 15% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were highly significant changes in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels with each agent and no differences in effect between the 2 agents. In 13 (43%) of the 30 patients, LDL levels were reduced to